The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1887-05-04
HIGH SALARIES OF LOW SALARIES.

Common Sense Talk and Unanswera-
bic Arguments in Favor Of Low
SaIarics--.SOme Solid Facts for
Thought.
Nc,Ubc,7y Observer.
A certain amount from the school fund
is available every year for the teacher OF
public school. This amount is not in
creased or diminished by increasing or
diminishing the teachers monthly salary.
Suppose this amount is Sl20. Can't our
cotemporary see that if the teacher is
paid $40 a month from the school fund
the amount will last only three months,
whereas if he is paid 500 month it will
last six months2 So that the matter is
narrowed down to the plain question.
Is it better to pay the teacher higher
salary from the public fund and thereby
shorten the school term, or to pay him
smaller salary and lengthen the term
We insist that the latter alternative is the
better. And in advocating this view, so
far from manifesting "prejudice against
the cause of popular education" and so
far from desiring that any "child in the
State shall grow up in ignorance because
of the poverty Of it's parents" we are
advocating a plan that would help the
cause of popular education, and would
secure advantages to poor children that
are now denied them. Let us illustrate:
The NeevS and Courier insist on high
salary relatively speaking) per month
say $40. The Observer insist OH low
salary-say 800. If the amount available
for the teacher, for the year, from the
public fund, is Sl2O, the school would con-
tinue open as a public school three
months under the Ne,Us and Courier s
plan, and six months under the ObSer-
GERS plan. Under the NeDS and courie''S S
plan some children would have 10 leave
the school at the end OF three months
"because of the poverty of their parents" "
while under the Observers plan they
could 60 for six months.
There is another important distinction:
The Observers plan is in accordance with
the State Constitution, while the Ne0S
and C0urier's is not. This is apparent
from the reading of the following pro-
visions of the constitution, under the
head of "Education':
Art. X. Sec 3.-There shall be kept open
at least Si1 months i1l each gear one or more
schools in each scool district.
Art. X, Sec. l0.-All the public scools = 4
\ supported In whole o. IN part by the pub
lie funds shall be free and open 10 all the chill
y
It seems to us that the school boards are
constitutionally bound to keep the schools
open six months in each year. The only
way to do this is to divide the school
fund into six parts. The salary of a
teacher then, per month, would be one
sixth Of the total amount available for his
school for the year. If this amount is
Sl20, his salary-so far as the public
school funds are concerned-wouldb be $50
per month. And the board not only
have the right in such case to say it shall
not be more. but the Constitution makes
it their plain duty to say so.
There should be school open in each
school district at least six months in each
year, from which school no child should
be excluded "because of the poverty Of
it's parents" TO accomplish this the
school board is compelled to allow a
small salary per month to the teacher.
Suppose this salary per month is only 500.
Nobody is compelled to teach for $50 a
month but the schools must have teach
ers. The patrons of the school, or those
who are able, can supplement this $50,
and get good teacher. They can get a
40-dollar-a-montht teacher, ifthey wish
the State paying 500, and the patrons 500;
and the school would be open six months
III tue year W utt IHo Cuiluleu aiu yOuIhS
Of the community, as the Constitution
prescribes.
The NewS and Courier says:
"What 1t 1.-THE Observerl desires, apparently,
Is that all the people shall contribute to the
school fund, in part, leaving to some Of the
people to supplement that fund, IN order TO
keep the schools going for full term,' Our
tice OF this proposed arrangement, and we
confess our inability to supply its omission.
Precisely so; that is just what we de-
sire. Az to the 'Justice' of this arrange
ment, every one must see that to deny
its Justice is to deny the justice Of the
free school system entirely for the free
school system compels some-those who
have property-to pay for the schooling
of others-those who have none. Indeed,
that is the basal idea of the free school
system, and it's TaisOn d'etre. If every
body were able to pay for the schooling
Of his children there would be no reason
for the free schools.
Some Of the people must supplement
the school fund, in order to secure a full
school term, for the simple reason that
the school fund is insufficient to secure it.
we both agree OIL that point-indeed there
is no alternative. But the difference be-
tween us is, that the Observer thinks this
supplement fund should be distributed
over full school term, while the Ne,CS
and Courier contends it should be used
after the public fund is exhausted. The
practical results of the two proposed
arrangements is that the Observers plan
would not compel any child in the State
'to grow up in ignorance because OF the
poverty of it's parents" while the NeWS
and C6urier's would or, rather, the o.
scrucr's plan would give such child six
months of schooling in each year, while
tho News and C0uric,'s plan would give
it only three.
Whether one man should pay for the
schooling of another mans child, is not a
practical question under our State Con-
stitution. The Constitution says he
shall; and lie does. Does the Nevs md
Courier say this is not just? Then let it
advocate an amendment to tho Constitu-
ton and the abolition Of the free school
system. But as long rs we have the sys-
tenn we should make it as efficient as
possible in the accomplishment Of the
purpose for which it was established /;
and the school boards should obey the
Constitution. Then the free schools
would remain open sat least six months
in each year." and "no child in the State
would be compelled to grow up III ig-
norance because Of the poverty OF its
parents"
Married women's Contracts.